Public health: disconnections between policy, practice and research
Public health: disconnections between policy, practice and research
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1478-4505-8-37
复制
发表时间：
2010-01-01
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
de Vries, Nanne K.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jansen, Maria W. J.;van Oers, Hans A. M.;de Vries, Nanne K.
背景：公共卫生包括政策、实践和研究，但将学术研究、实践和公共卫生政策充分联系起来似乎很困难。政策、实践和研究之间的合作对于在公共卫生领域获得更确凿的证据至关重要。然而，这三个领域并不容易一起工作，因为它们来自三个或多或少独立的“利基”。每个利基的工作周期都有相同的连续步骤：问题识别、方法制定、实施和评估，但工作方式不同。到目前为止，研究主要集中在议程设置上，如Kingdon所表达的属于第一步，以及学术知识在决策者决策过程中的运用，如Weiss所阐述的属于第四步。此外，在决策过程中还有更多需要交流的步骤。方法：采用文献检索法进行定性描述性研究。分析了政策、实践和研究四个步骤的工作周期。接下来，我们将主要的冲突方面解释为每个步骤的断开。结果：各领域存在显著差异，强化了各领域的生态位特征，阻碍了各领域的整合与协作。脱节的范围从在问题陈述中制定优先事项到权力角色、评估证据、工作态度、工作速度、目标透明度、评价和延续战略以及公共责任。提高对这些脱节的认识可能会使研究人员、政策制定者和实践者之间更加协调。结论：我们提供的分析可用于公共卫生服务相关的研究人员、从业人员和政策制定者，以了解断开连接的风险。综合考虑公共卫生问题的社会、实际和科学意义，应该成为寻求建立联合办法的对话的起点。为了克服上述脱节，面对面的接触一直是传递知识、实现更高质量和承认相互依赖的最有效方式。我们建议建立以实践和政策为基础的研究网络，在研究人员、决策者和从业人员之间建立牢固的联系，以改善公共卫生。
Background: Public health includes policy, practice and research but to sufficiently connect academic research, practice and public health policy appears to be difficult. Collaboration between policy, practice and research is imperative to obtaining more solid evidence in public health. However, the three domains do not easily work together because they emanate from three more or less independent 'niches'.Work cycles of each niche have the same successive steps: problem recognition, approach formulation, implementation, and evaluation, but are differently worked out. So far, the research has focused on agenda-setting which belongs to the first step, as expressed by Kingdon, and on the use of academic knowledge in policy makers' decision-making processes which belongs to the fourth step, as elaborated by Weiss. In addition, there are more steps in the policy-making process where exchange is needed.Method: A qualitative descriptive research was conducted by literature search. We analyzed the four steps of the policy, practice and research work cycles. Next, we interpreted the main conflicting aspects as disconnections for each step.Results: There are some conspicuous differences that strengthen the niche character of each domain and hamper integration and collaboration. Disconnections ranged from formulating priorities in problem statements to power roles, appraisal of evidence, work attitudes, work pace, transparency of goals, evaluation and continuation strategies and public accountability. Creating awareness of these disconnections may result in more compatibility between researchers, policy makers and practitioners.Conclusion: We provide an analysis that can be used by public health services-related researchers, practitioners and policy makers to be aware of the risk for disconnections. A synthesis of the social, practical and scientific relevance of public health problems should be the starting point for a dialogue that seeks to establish a joint approach. To overcome the above mentioned disconnections, face-to-face encounters consistently emerge as the most efficient way to transfer knowledge, achieve higher quality and acknowledge mutual dependence. We recommend practice and policy based research networks to establish strong links between researchers, policy makers and practitioners to improve public health.